Costs and cumulative and unit quantities of CO2 emissions sequestration 6 and 30 years after
implementation of the AIJ-RPTES project

Project components

Cost per

Component

(US$)

CO2 emission sequestration

(x1000 tons of CO2)

Unit cost of sequestration

per ton of CO2

(US$/ton CO2)

6 years

30 years

6 years

30 years

Development and pilot

Sales of kerosene stoves

500,000

271

6,006

1.84

10.08

Promotion of solar

Photovoltaic systems

280,000

18

163

15.49

1.72

Sustainable forest

Management

970,000

245

3,725

3.96

0.25

Promotion of improved

Carbonization techniques

650,000

916

15,170

0.71

0.04

TOTAL

2,400,000

1,450

25,164

1.66

0.10

5) Mutually agreed assessment procedures

Same as previous

B. Governmental acceptance, approval or endorsement

Previous report

1) For the activity:

First report and joint reporting: please add copies of letters of endorsement by each designated
national authority of Parties involved in the activity.

Subsequent reports

Activity was: __ suspended

__ terminated earlier

Describe:

2) This report is a joint report:

_x_ Yes, forward copy of agreement/endorsement by the designated national authorities involved

__ No

E. Calculation of the contribution of activities implemented jointly projects that bring about real,
measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change that would not
have occurred in the absence of such activities

Summary table: Projected emissions reductions:

GHG

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

A) Project baseline scenario

CO2

0.1

0.75

0.75

1.5

CH4

N2O

Other

B) Project activity scenarioa)

CO2

0.09

0.6755

0.6755

1.35

CH4

N2O

Other

C) Effect (B-A)

CO2

0.01

0.075

0.075

0.15

CH4

N2O

Other

D) Cumulative effect

CO2

0.01

0.085

0.16

0.31

H. Additional comments, if any, including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties,
effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered

The World Bank, DANIDA, and the Dutch Government have harmonized their approach to the sector and joint
supervision missions have been conducted to monitor activities of the sector.

At the level of the Project with several components, the following issues and activities are relevant to
mention:

Institutional framework: The institutional arrangements to coordinate the Program was very slow to
become effective. The Program was officially launched on January 17, 1998. However, the coordination unit
became effective only in May 1999. This initial delay requires an extension of the Program for about a year
in order to implement programmed activities.

Community based forest management: The following activities were conducted: (i) data collection and
participatory diagnostic study of in the project area. Upon completion of the work, the potentialities and
constraints related, inter alia, to soil, vegetation, wildlife, hydrography and exploitation of forest
resources were identified. In addition, backstopping activities with performance indicators were identified
by village; and (ii) forest land use cartography. The forest inventory is the main activity to be conducted
before effective management of the identified forests.

Promotion of improved carbonization technology: Studies were initiated to assess the charcoal
situation (production area, production techniques, producers, distributors etc.) in relation to the five
major towns in Burkina Faso. Existing carbonization techniques were evaluated and improved technologies
identified. The outcomes of these studies show that charcoal production is not organized and that it is
done on demand. The traditional pit, the traditional millstone, the Casamance millstone are the three
carbonization technologies that were identified. The Casamance millstone was adopted as being the most
energy efficient. The adoption of a master plan for supplying the major towns with charcoal still depends
on the outcome of the studies on the supply of Burkina’s urban centers with charcoal.

Development and promotion of kerosene stoves: Target groups for the promotion and pilot sale of
kerosene stoves were identified as well as the development of a model of stove that is effective and
appropriate in technical and socio-economic terms. Under this component, it is planned to disseminate 2,000
stoves.

Promotion of solar photovoltaic systems: Studies were conducted to identify six villages to be
equipped with solar photovoltaic systems. Key criteria used in the selection of the villages were strategic
location in terms of enhancing social, health, educational and economic facilities. The equipment have been
ordered and expected to be delivered in the coming months.

A technical evaluation of the Program was conducted in March 2001 by Dr. Youba Sokona (ENDA-Tiers Monde)
and Mr. Gabriel Yameogo (EDEN). This evaluation has recommended specific capacity building activities
directed to the coordination unit of the project and also to stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation has
pointed out the paucity of reference data of the program making monitoring of implementation.

Project related risks

Component

Promotion and pilot sales of kerosene stoves

Probable reluctance on the part of households to use kerosene as fuel for cooking;

It is possible that the studies may not succeed in identifying and/or developing a suitable
model of kerosene stove that is attractive in terms of purchase price and use compared with the
woodfuel and/or butane gas options;

The final phase of large-scale dissemination of kerosene stoves may be compromised if there is
not effective mobilization of the financial resources necessary for the pursuit of the operation.

Promotion of solar photovoltaic systems

Electrification may not be one of target populations’ priorities;

Risk of not being able to make the project outcomes permanent if the beneficiary populations do
not contribute to and fail to cooperate in the upkeep and maintenance of the equipment installed.

Sustainable forest management

Risks of the populations not cooperating in the formulation and implementation of the forest
development and management plans and programs.

Flexibility of the project

The AIJ-RPTES project has a certain flexibility for coping with unforeseen situations or factors beyond its
control. In point of fact, in the annex to the grant agreement it is specified (subparagraph 2.1.i.d) that
"the Beneficiary shall, if need be, enter into exchanges of views with the IDA representatives on the
status of progress and the results of the activities" of the project. This provision makes it
possible, in the course of implementation of the project, to propose adjustment measures together with
requests for financing to the Donor if necessary in order to remove various constraints.

It was in this context that a request for adjustment of financing was submitted by the Burkina Government
to enable an "operating costs" category to be taken into account at the beginning of 1999 in
order to strengthen the operating capacity for implementation of the project by giving it a minimum of
autonomy of operation. This request was the subject of a notice of no objection from the World Bank in June
1999, thereby authorizing that personnel and operating costs be taken into account.

Monitoring and evaluation of the project

The monitoring and evaluation of the AIJ-RPTES project are performing in the first place by the
technical directorates responsible for the implementation of the different components and by the target
groups in the project implementation zones.

The Coordination Unit does the monitoring and evaluation of implementation of all the components on the
basis of a monitoring and evaluation system integrated into the RPTES program.

It will analyze any implementation shortcomings and propose solutions in conjunction with the managers
of the implementation structures.

Quarterly, half-yearly, annual and detailed reports will be prepared in accordance with the provisions
of the grant agreement and the project planning.

The monitoring and evaluation system must make it possible to adjust and/or reorient the project
activities in light of the outcomes obtained and the constraints encountered, and also to measure the
impact and performance of the project.